- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
PAGE v. CLARK
Page v. Clark, Docket No. 78321 — Michigan Court of Appeals (Mar. 28, 1985)
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff appealed as of right from the trial court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment. The trial court found, as a matter of law, that plaintiff had not suffered a "serious impairment of body function" as required to maintain an action in tort under the Michigan no-fault act, and therefore entered summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff raised three issues on appeal, which the Court of Appeals described as not meritorious.
On the merits, plaintiff claimed "whiplash" injuries arising from an automobile accident. Plaintiff's injuries included use of a cervical collar, limited range of motion of his neck and head, and absence from work for three months. The treating physician reported severe neck muscle spasm and extreme restriction of neck movement immediately after the accident, but stated that three months later there was "a nearly 100 percent resolution of the problem." The trial court relied on these facts in concluding that the injuries did not meet the statutory threshold.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial court should have denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that discovery was not complete.
- Whether a factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries precluded summary judgment.
- Whether plaintiff's injuries constituted a "serious impairment of body function" under the Michigan no-fault act such that a tort action could be maintained.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- Plaintiff argued the trial court should not have ruled on defendants' summary judgment motion because discovery was not complete.
- Plaintiff argued that a factual dispute existed regarding the nature and extent of his injuries, which should have precluded summary judgment.
Defendants' Arguments
- Defendants (through counsel at the summary-judgment hearing) stated they were not disputing the nature and extent of plaintiff's treatment.
- Defendants argued that, based on the medical records and the treating physician's report, plaintiff's injury was not a "serious impairment of body function" as a matter of law and therefore did not support a tort action under the no-fault act.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kortas v Thunderbowl Lounge, 120 Mich. App. 84, 87; 327 N.W.2d 401 (1982) | The proposition that, for purposes of a motion for summary judgment, discovery need not be complete; the relevant inquiry is whether further discovery stands a fair chance of uncovering factual support for a litigant's position. | The court applied Kortas to reject plaintiff's contention that incomplete discovery required denial of summary judgment, noting plaintiff had submitted the treating physician's report and there was no indication further discovery would show the doctor would testify differently. |
| Cassidy v McGovern, 415 Mich. 483; 330 N.W.2d 22 (1982), reh den 417 Mich. 1104 (1983) | The determination of whether a plaintiff has suffered a "serious impairment of body function" under the Michigan no-fault act is to be made by the trial court as a matter of law; injuries need not be permanent but must be objectively manifested. | The court relied on Cassidy to treat the presence of a serious impairment as a legal question for disposition on summary judgment and applied the objective-manifestation requirement to the medical record before it. |
| Braden v Lee, 133 Mich. App. 215, 219; 348 N.W.2d 63 (1984) | Holds that injuries which do not prevent a plaintiff from performing tasks related to employment, or which do not interfere with the general ability to live a normal life, do not constitute a serious impairment of body function. | The court invoked Braden's principle to assess whether plaintiff's whiplash injuries met the statutory threshold and concluded they did not. |
| Guerrero v Schoolmeester, 135 Mich. App. 742, 750; 356 N.W.2d 251 (1984) | Reinforces the rule that non-permanent injuries that do not interfere with employment tasks or general ability to live a normal life do not constitute serious impairment. | The court applied Guerrero alongside Braden to support its conclusion that the plaintiff's injuries, which largely resolved within three months, were not a serious impairment as a matter of law. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in several discrete steps:
- On the discovery issue, the court noted plaintiff had not raised the incomplete-discovery argument in the trial court and thus was precluded from asserting it on appeal. The court further relied on Kortas to state that discovery need not be complete to decide a summary-judgment motion; the relevant inquiry is whether additional discovery would likely produce facts supporting the litigant's position. The court found no indication in the record or the physician's report that further discovery would reveal testimony more favorable to plaintiff.
- On the asserted factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of injuries, the court observed defendants' counsel explicitly disclaimed disputing the nature and extent of plaintiff's treatment at the summary-judgment hearing. The court characterized the dispute as legal rather than factual: defendants did not contest the reported extent of treatment but contended those reported injuries did not, as a matter of law, amount to a serious impairment of body function.
- Applying controlling authority (Cassidy), the court treated the existence of a serious impairment as a legal determination for the court to make. The court reiterated that injuries need not be permanent but must be objectively manifested. It applied the further clarifying principles from Braden and Guerrero that injuries which do not prevent performance of employment-related tasks or do not interfere with the general ability to live a normal life do not meet the statutory standard.
- The court compared these legal standards to the medical evidence: plaintiff's treating physician documented severe spasm and extreme restriction immediately after the accident, but reported "a nearly 100 percent resolution of the problem" three months later. Given the resolution and the nature of the injuries (described as whiplash with temporary restriction and a three-month absence from work), the court concluded the injuries did not satisfy the objective, serious-impairment threshold required by the no-fault act.
Holding and Implications
Affirmed.
Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, concluding that plaintiff had not suffered a "serious impairment of body function" as defined under the Michigan no-fault act and that summary judgment was therefore proper.
Implications: The direct effect is that plaintiff's action was dismissed by summary judgment and the appeal was unsuccessful. The opinion applies existing precedent to the facts but does not announce or discuss any new legal rule or broader change in precedent.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's finding that, as a matter of law, plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of body function, based on which the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff raises three issues on appeal, none of them meritorious.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court should not have ruled on defendants' motion for summary judgment because discovery was not complete. Since plaintiff failed to argue this in the trial court, we are precluded from considering it on appeal. Moreover, plaintiff had already obtained and submitted a report by the treating physician. For purposes of a motion for summary judgment, discovery need not be complete; the question is merely whether further discovery stands a fair chance of uncovering factual support for the litigant's position. Kortas v Thunderbowl Lounge, 120 Mich. App. 84, 87; 327 N.W.2d 401 (1982). Neither plaintiff nor the doctor's report gives any indication that the doctor would testify that plaintiff's injuries were more serious than stated in the report.
Plaintiff next argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because a factual dispute existed regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries. To the contrary, defendants' attorney explicitly stated at the hearing on summary judgment, "We are not disputing the nature and extent of the plaintiff's treatment". Defendants argued instead that plaintiff's injury, as reported in medical records, was not a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. The dispute in this case is not the factual question of the extent of plaintiff's injuries, but rather the legal question of whether those injuries amount to a serious impairment.
The determination of whether a plaintiff has suffered a serious impairment of body function so as to maintain an action in tort under the Michigan no-fault act is to be made by the trial court as a matter of law. Cassidy v McGovern, 415 Mich. 483; 330 N.W.2d 22 (1982), reh den 417 Mich. 1104 (1983). The injuries need not be permanent to be considered serious, but they must be objectively manifested. Id. Injuries which do not prevent a plaintiff from performing tasks related to employment, or which do not interfere with the general ability to live a normal life, do not constitute serious impairment of body function. Braden v Lee, 133 Mich. App. 215, 219; 348 N.W.2d 63 (1984); Guerrero v Schoolmeester, 135 Mich. App. 742, 750; 356 N.W.2d 251 (1984).
Plaintiff in this case claimed "whiplash" injuries which caused the wearing of a cervical collar, limited range of motion of his neck and head, and his absence from work for three months. Plaintiff's treating physician reported that, right after the automobile accident, plaintiff had a tremendous amount of spasm and tenderness in his neck muscles, and movement of his neck was extremely restricted. Three months later, the doctor pronounced "a nearly 100 percent resolution of the problem".
We do not think the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of body function as required by the no-fault act. Summary judgment was proper in this case.
Affirmed.
Alert